coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
6.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Warsaw, Poland.
7.  On 20 May 1992 the prosecution authorities lodged with the Warsaw District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy) a bill of indictment against the applicant. He was charged with causing a traffic accident occasioning death and serious bodily harm.
8.  The District Court held hearings on 6 May and 27 May 1993. At the hearing held on 15 June 1993 the applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to one year’s imprisonment suspended for three years.
9.  On 23 November 1993, upon the applicant’s appeal, the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) quashed the first instance judgment and remitted the case to the Piaseczno District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy), holding that a further investigation should be carried out.
10.  On 1 October 1994 the Piaseczno District Prosecutor lodged a new bill of indictment with the Warsaw District Court. On 23 July 1997 the trial court remitted the case to the Piaseczno District Prosecutor, holding that the prosecution had not complied with the orders given by the Regional Court on 23 November 1993.
11.  On 19 August 1997, upon the prosecutor’s appeal, the Warsaw Regional Court quashed this decision and ordered the District Court to proceed with the case.
12.  The court held hearings on 11 December 1997, 3 March, 17 April and 2 June  1998.
13.  On 9 April 1999 the Warsaw District Court gave judgment and acquitted the applicant on all charges.
4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Torre del Greco (Naples).
5.  She is the owner of a flat in Torre del Greco, which she had let to M. R.
6.  In a registered letter of 1 December 1987, the applicant informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1987, and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.
7.  In a writ served on the tenant on 1 September 1989, the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Naples Magistrate.
8.  By a decision of 20 September 1989, which was made enforceable on 4 October 1989, the Naples Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 June 1992.
9.  On 14 July 1993, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for her son.
10.  On 23 September 1993, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
11.  On 11 November 1993, she served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 22 November 1993.
12.  Between 22 November 1993 and 16 April 1998 the bailiff made ten attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
13.  On 4 March 1999, the applicant and the tenant entered into a new lease.
4.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Cave.
5.  F.D. was the owner of a flat in Rome, which he had let to A.C.
6.  In a writ served on the tenant on 20 October 1987, he communicated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.
7.  By a judgment of 30 April 1990, the text of which was deposited with the registry on 3 May 1990, the Rome Magistrate declared termination of the lease and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 November 1990. The judgment was made enforceable on 24 September 1990.
8.  On 17 January 1991, F.D. served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises. On 28 February 1991, he served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 15 April 1991.
9.  Between 15 April 1991 and 27 May 1993, the bailiff made 13 attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the staggering of evictions, F.D. was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
10.  On an unspecified date the applicant became the owner of the flat.
11.  On 28 February 1994, he served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
12.  On 3 May 1994, he served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 10 May 1994.
13.  Between 10 May 1994 and 1 December 1998, the bailiff made 24 attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the staggering of evictions, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
14.  Pursuant to Section 6 of Law no. 431 of 9 December 1998, the enforcement proceedings were suspended.
15.  On 30 November 2001, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.
4.  The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in S. Donà di Piave (Venice).
5.  He and his sister are the owners of a flat in Cava De' Tirreni (Salerno), which they had let to A.A.
6.  In a writ served on the tenant on 27 June 1991, the applicant informed the tenant of his intention to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 12 March 1993 and summoned the tenant to appear before the Cava De' Tirreni Magistrate (Salerno).
7.  By a decision of 16 September 1991, which was made enforceable on 5 November 1991, the Cava De' Tirreni Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 12 March 1994.
8.  On 9 April 1994, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
9.  On 23 April 1994, he served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 16 May 1994.
10.  On 16 May 1994, the bailiff made one attempt to recover possession, which proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order of possession.
11.  The tenant asked the Cava De' Tirreni Magistrate to suspend the eviction proceedings.
12.  On 28 July 1997, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for himself.
13.  Pursuant to Law no. 431/98, the enforcement proceedings were suspended until 26 December 2000.
14.  On 28 February 2001, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.
4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Naples.
5.  He is the owner of a flat in Naples, which he had let to C.E.
6.  In a writ served on the tenant on 15 January 1987, the applicant communicated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Naples Magistrate.
7.  By a decision of 13 December 1987, which was filed with the registry on 16 December 1987, the Naples Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises must be vacated by 31 December 1989.
8.  On 30 November 1988, the tenant appealed to the Naples District Court.
9.  By a decision of 26 October 1990, the court rejected the appeal and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 June 1991.
10.  On 27 December 1990, the applicant served notice of the judgment on the tenant.
11.  On 5 July 1991, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 16 July 1991.
12.  Between 16 July 1991 and 24 September 1992, the bailiff made five attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the staggering of evictions, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
13.  On 19 February 1993, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for his father.
14.  Between 25 February 1993 and 28 April 1998, the bailiff made eighteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
15.  On 3 July 1998, the applicant repossessed the flat with the assistance of the police.
4.  The applicant was born in 1916 and lives in Viareggio.
5.  The applicant is the owner of two flats in Camaiore, which he had let to V.D.B. and S.C. respectively.
 
 
1)  The proceedings against V.D.B.
6.  In a writ served on the tenant on 10 October 1990, the applicant communicated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Lucca Magistrate.
7.  By a decision of 18 October 1990, the Lucca Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1992. That decision was made enforceable on 21 January 1993.
8.  On 3 February 1993, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
9.  On 24 February 1993, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 20 October 1993.
10.  On 30 June 1993, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for himself.
11.  Between 20 October 1993 and 23 May 1996, the bailiff made 13 attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
12.  In December 1996, the tenant vacated the premises.
2)  The proceedings against S.C.
13.  In a writ served on the tenant on 10 October 1990, the applicant communicated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Lucca Magistrate.
14.  By a decision of 18 October 1990, the Lucca Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1992. That decision was made enforceable on 21 January 1993.
15.  On 3 February 1993, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
16.  On 24 February 1993, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 20 October 1993.
17.  On 30 June 1993, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for his daughter.
18.  Between 20 October 1993 and 13 January 1997, the bailiff made 17 attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
19.  In February 1997, the tenant vacated the premises.
10.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lived in Gyömrő, Hungary.
11.  In 1986 the applicant had a work-related accident. Until July 1990 he was unfit for work and received an 'accident allowance' on account of a partial disability. In the light of subsequent medical reports showing an improved working capacity, the allowance was stopped as from August 1990.
12.  On 16 April 1993 the applicant brought a court action to challenge the social security authorities' decisions refusing to resume payment of the allowance.
13.  On 30 April, 7 June and 3 September 1993 the Buda Surroundings District Court held hearings. On 21 December 1993 it joined the applicant's various claims against the social security authorities. Several hearings and an expert examination were conducted between 12 January 1994 and 1 March 1996.
14.  On 24 June 1997 the District Court appointed a traumatology expert. The applicant underwent further medical examinations on 15 September and 9 October 1997. The completed expert opinion was submitted on 10 February 1998. On 12 February 1998 the District Court ordered the Forensic Committee of the Health Science Council to reconcile the various medical opinions submitted in the case, which it did on 2 September 1998.
15.  On 12 November 1998 the District Court dismissed the applicant's action.
16.  On 8 March 1999 the Pest County Regional Court dismissed the applicant's appeal.
17.  On 12 December 2000 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's petition for review. On 13 March 2001 this decision was forwarded to the first instance court for service on the parties.
18.  On 16 December 2002 the applicant died. On 14 May 2003 the Government informed the Registry of this fact. None of the applicant's successors, if such exist, has contacted the Court.
6.  The applicant was born in 1928 and lives in Turku.
7.  On 16 June 1998 the District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) of Vantaa convicted the applicant of aggravated concealment of stolen goods and aggravated forgery, sentencing him to one year and six months’ imprisonment. The applicant and his co-defendants had denied the charges. The District Court referred the complainants’ claims for damages to be pursued in separate civil proceedings once the criminal proceedings had ended.
8.  In his appeal to the Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten) of Helsinki the applicant maintained his innocence and, in the alternative, requested that his sentence be reduced or suspended. He also proposed to re-examine witness P., who had already been heard in the District Court.
9.  The Court of Appeal summoned the applicant to attend its oral hearing on 24 May 1999. He failed to do so, allegedly due to his dementia and other age-related illnesses, but was represented by his counsel, who submitted a medical certificate and alluded to the applicant’s dementia. Counsel further stated that the applicant had failed to show up for their joint departure for Helsinki in spite of their prior agreement.
10.  In its decision of the same day the Court of Appeal found that no legally valid excuse had been shown for the applicant’s absence. His appeal was therefore struck out without counsel having been able to plead its merits and without having been able to re-examine witness P. The State was ordered to pay P. an allowance and reimburse her costs for having presented herself at the hearing venue.
11.  On 15 July 1999 the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s request for the proceedings to be re-opened. A fresh medical certificate of 11 June 1999 had not convinced the court that he had had a valid excuse for being absent from its main hearing.
12.  On 28 September 1999 the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) refused the applicant leave to appeal.
13.  In civil proceedings brought by an insurance company the District Court, on 1 November 2000, ordered the applicant and others to compensate the company for damage caused in the commission of their crime. On 30 May 2002 the Court of Appeal refused the applicant’s appeal.
10.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lived in Vienna.
11.  From 1989 the applicant lived with Mr W., with whom he had a homosexual relationship, in a flat in Vienna, which the latter had rented a year earlier. They shared the expenses on the flat.
12.  In 1991 Mr W. discovered that he was infected with the Aids virus. His relationship with the applicant continued. In 1993, when Mr W. developed Aids, the applicant nursed him. In 1994 Mr W. died after designating the applicant as his heir.
13.  In 1995 the landlord of the flat brought proceedings against the applicant for termination of the tenancy. On 6 January 1996 the Favoriten District Court (Bezirksgericht) dismissed the action. It considered that section 14(3) of the Rent Act (Mietrechtsgesetz), which provided that family members had a right to succeed to a tenancy, was also applicable to a homosexual relationship.
14.  On 30 April 1996 the Vienna Regional Civil Court (Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen) dismissed the landlord's appeal. It found that section 14(3) of the Rent Act was intended to protect persons who had lived together for a long time without being married against sudden homelessness. It applied to homosexuals as well as to persons of opposite sex.
15.  On 5 December 1996 the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) granted the landlord's appeal, quashed the lower court's decision and terminated the lease. It found that the notion of “life companion” (Lebensgefährte) in section 14(3) of the Rent Act was to be interpreted as at the time it was enacted, and the legislature's intention in 1974 was not to include persons of the same sex.
16.  On 26 September 2000 the applicant died.
17.  On 11 November 2001 the applicant's lawyer informed the Court of the applicant's death and that his mother had waived her right to succeed to the estate. He asked the Court not to strike the application out of its list before the public notary handling the applicant's estate had traced other heirs.
18.  On 10 April 2002 the applicant's lawyer informed the Court that the public notary had instigated enquiries in order to trace previously unknown heirs who might wish to succeed to the estate.
6.  The applicant was born in 1930 and lives in Brwinów, Poland.
7.  On 3 February 1994 the applicant asked the Pruszków District Court (Sąd Rejonowy w Pruszkowie) to declare that he acquired property by prescription.
8.  On 16 November 1994 the court held the first hearing.
9.  In 1995 and 1996 the court held eight hearings at which it heard witnesses.
10.  In 1997 the court scheduled five hearings. They were all adjourned either because the participants or witnesses were not properly notified about the hearings or they were absent for another reason.
11.  From 20 February to 29 December 1998 the court listed seven hearings. Most of them were adjourned.
12.  On 15 January 1999 the court ordered an inspection of the land register.
13.  On 21 August 2000 the court, sitting in camera, called as participants four persons and stayed the proceedings.
14.  It appears that the applicant appealed against this decision but her appeal was never examined.
15.  On 2 March 2001 the court, sitting in camera, resumed the proceedings. It further established that one of the participants in the proceedings had died and stayed the proceedings again.
16.  On 22 May 2001 the court, sitting in camera, resumed the proceedings and called two persons as participants.
17.  The applicant submits that since December 1998 no hearings have been held and that the proceedings are pending before the Pruszków District Court.
9.  The applicants were born in 1929 and 1923 respectively. The applicant in application no. 43185/98 (“Dr Price”) is a consultant psychiatrist; the applicant in application no. 43186/98 (“Mrs Lowe”) is a medical secretary. They live in Lincoln.
10.  The applicants, together with Dr Price’s wife, were sued by “K”, a former patient of Dr Price, in respect of property in Florida. The writ was issued on 12 February 1986. Before the action came to trial, the plaintiff was adjudicated bankrupt on 9 August 1989 and the trustee in bankruptcy continued the action.
11.  The trial was set down to commence in the High Court in August 1994 but was postponed until the end of September 1994 because the judge was not available for the length of time needed for the hearing.
12.  On the fourth day of trial, while K was being cross-examined, an adjournment was granted because K claimed to feel unwell. In the event, it emerged that no medical justification could be given for his continued non-attendance, but nonetheless he remained absent for the rest of the trial. Because of the delay caused by K’s non-attendance, the trial could not be concluded in September 1994 and had to be adjourned until January 1995. Judgment was given on 27 April 1995.
13.  The judge accepted the argument of the applicants and Mrs Price that it was necessary to disregard K’s evidence because of his failure to remain for cross-examination. However, on the basis of the documentary evidence and that adduced by the applicants and Mrs Price, the judge found that the transfer of the Florida property should be set aside on the ground that the defendants had not been able to rebut the presumption of undue influence created by the discrepancy in the price they paid K for the property and its value at the time of the transfer, together with the doctor-patient relationship between Dr Price and K.
14.  The formal record of the judge’s order was not prepared by the parties until 26 October 1995. The applicants and Mrs Price applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal on 1 November 1995. The appeal bundles were lodged on 4 October 1996. On 15 January 1997 the appeal was listed for hearing, and it was heard on 16 and 17 April 1997, on which last date the Court of Appeal gave judgment dismissing the appeal.
15.  In connection with the moneys paid by Dr Price for the property, the Court of Appeal confirmed the decision of the trial judge that the sum should be repaid, but that no interest should be paid on it. The trial judge had based his decision on the fact that Dr Price “had had possession of the properties and receipt of the rents since the completion of the sale, subject only to the agreement to allow [K] to use number 212 in the early months”. Lord Justice Nourse regarded this as a “rough and ready result”, but one which would “reduce the opportunities for further dispute between the parties”.
16.  On 19 April 1997 the applicants and Mrs Price were refused leave by the Court of Appeal to appeal to the House of Lords. On 30 March 1998 the applicants and Mrs Price were refused leave to appeal by the House of Lords.
7.  The applicants, Mr M.M. and Ms E.M.M., were born in 1988 and 1990 respectively. They live in Ostrołęka, Poland.
8.  On 26 August 1994 the applicants' mother was murdered by Mr J.M. – her husband and the father of the applicants. Subsequently, Mrs R.D. was appointed as the applicants' foster parent. Mr J.M. was deprived of his parental rights and on 15 October 1998 the Warsaw Regional Court convicted him of murder. It appears that he was later declared unworthy of inheriting his wife's estate and that the applicants were declared her heirs.
9.  On 14 June 1996 the applicants initiated before the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy w Warszawie) civil proceedings concerning division of their late mother's estate and the matrimonial property (o podział majątku dorobkowego i dział spadku). Mr J.M. was a party to those proceedings.
10.  Subsequently, Mrs R.D. applied for an interim measure to appoint her as an administrator of a flat in Warsaw which belonged to the applicants' parents and was the most valuable part of their matrimonial property. It had been unoccupied since 1994 but Mrs R.D. had been paying all maintenance costs and wanted to prevent its further destruction, as the flat had been burgled on several occasions.
11.  The first hearing was held on 19 December 1996.
12.  On 5 February 1997 the Warsaw District Court, sitting in camera, allowed Mrs R.D.'s application for an interim measure. However, following Mr J.M.'s appeal, on 27 May 1997 the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki w Warszawie) quashed this decision and dismissed the application.
13.  From 1 October 1997 to 28 January 1999 the District Court listed five hearings. Most of them were adjourned.
14.  On 8 November 2000 the court, sitting in camera, stayed the proceedings.
15.  The applicants appealed against this decision and on 14 December 2000 the Warsaw District Court allowed their appeal and quashed it.
16.  Between October 1998 and July 2001 no hearings were held.
17.  On 25 July 2001 the parties reached a friendly settlement according to which the applicants were granted the flat and their father kept all flat's equipment and a car.
18.  Mr J.M. lodged an appeal against the settlement but on 20 February 2002 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed it.